Homosexuals have an agenda... and probably business cards and a good powerpoint presentation to boot.
Out in the blogosphere there's been a lot of talk about Scalia's use of the phrase 'homosexual agenda' in Lawrence v. Texas, and whether it's a code word for all sorts of hatred.
I think people are getting a bit paranoid here. Yes, 'the homosexual agenda' is often used as a perjorative by folks like Helms. But what they're objecting to is not that a political group has an agenda, but the contents of the agenda itself.
If there is a gay rights movement, then it bloody well better have a homosexual (or gay rights, or homosexual rights) agenda. The Republicans have a Republican agenda, and while the Democrats will refer to it scathingly, it's not a dirty word. Conservatives (not always the same thing) have items on a 'conservative agenda,' and refer to it quite happily in the pages of National Review without wondering if we're comparing ourselves to communists. Having an agenda means you have aims and goals and is a good thing if you want to be a coherent entity. If the old management maxim is that 'a meeting without an agenda is a discussion,' then its political corollary should be 'a movement without an agenda is a mob.'
Is Scalia scathing of the 'homosexual agenda?' Well, certainly. Parts of that agenda include what Scalia would consider legislating through the court system, and it annoys him, especially since he's losing the argument. Does that make it (as Balkin contests above) the equivalent of calling Barney Frank 'Barney Fag?' Only if you're being hypersensitive to the point of ridiculousness.